What did it take for you to get your title?

I don't care what anybody says. Not everybody has the talent to become an IM, no matter how much they study, just like not everybody has the talent to become a great artist, no matter how much they paint. Get some common sense, people!

I met with a club-member a day or two after our regular club meets and he asked about a game... I set up the exact position from an endgame and we analysed it.  I'm also able to play out a few whole games (but I have to start at the beginning and can't do it with every game I played).

I think it's funny when people associate such things with titled players, class players can do things like this too.

Recognizing patterns (tactical or strategic) is something ever class of player is better at than the one before.  A group of lesser GMs can analyze for hours to find the correct idea when a WC might see it in passing... I think there are some anecdotes about Botvinnik doing something similar.  A GM just finishes setting up a position that was giving him trouble even after a few hours of analysing, and Botvinnik, still sitting across the room, says he sees 2 ways to win.

This general statement is phrased in such a way that one cannot disagree.

Yet I have to point out that it is talking about the limitation of human beings rather than how the titled players got their titles.

I think everyone would agree that the IM's and GM's have talents that the average chess player does not have.  I think the question is how far a person of average chess talent can go with lots of studying and hard work.

Personally, I suspect that the people holding titles did not set out to obtain a title, but rather have a love for the game that drives them to learn, practice, and play so much that they can't help but rise to the top (this idea is from Malcolm Gladwell).  I think if someone is in it just for the title, he or she will not be able to maintain the motivation necessary to obtain it.  It takes passion for the game.

In "How Life Imitates Chess," Garry Kasparov admitted that one of his secrets to becoming a great chess player was his talent for hard work but accompamied with (near single-minded) strict discipline. Kasparov's passion was chess.

Let the dissection of logic begin.

 I'd love to be able to live for 10,000,000 hours (well over 1000 years). The poor guy must be pretty hopeless at chess if he lived for over 1000 years and studied it for every single second of his life, and still can't break 2200 (which is, granted, no easy task for most, but over 1000 years!?)

@eric

I play poker, as a profession. From what I have noticed the ability to remember card sequences and betting pattern seems to directly be related to someones skill at the table. Time and time again, these are the players pulling down large prizes and hitting final tables.

Mmm... it seems titled players can't be bothered much with this question :p

So here's the list of tips towards becoming an IM

1 - never read online chess forums

Perhaps talent, and passion for the game go hand, and hand. 

2 - hire a GM/WGM chess coach
3 - stick with the routine of the chess coach

I think this particular disucssion was in another thread called "IM in 2 years".

No offense to anyone's opinion, but I remember arguing as a kid/teen that if someone worked hard enough they would be able to do anything eventually.  Specifically I remember arguing about gold medals in the Olympics and becoming a top level conservatory pianist.  When I got older I realized individuals actually do have limitations.  The best were the best because not only did they have a great amount of natural talent, but they worked very hard as well.

IMO what is probably getting confused is that because there are so many different skills and skill types, the average ability of any large population to a specific skill is low period.  So if someone does work very hard, and is motivated, they could certainly work their way into the top 80% or so of any sufficiently large population and would be recognized as very proficient.  Hard work and many years will almost certainly take you higher than the great majority of a population.  However the best have always been those with both natural talent and a strong work ethic.

To say anyone could become a GM shows a misunderstanding for that level of ability or perhaps betrays their age.

The motivation is certainly extremely important in chess, because there are lots of things you have to learn by yourself through practice and analyzing, so the idea that given enough time you could achieve X or Y, is a bit rhetorical : whatever the amount of time you have, if the motivation is not here, you won't go very far.

Besides, chess is not an academic pursuit : to get strong, you don't have to give good answers to a MCQ and show your knowledge, you have to beat other people over the board, which requires, on top of technical chess skills, such things as adaptation skills, nerves, energy, willpower, stamina, etc.

I've been playing and teaching for a long time, and it's clear strong players (+2200 elo) all have a deep love for the game, which gives them the energy to spend long hours at the board and to learn from their mistakes. It seems very talented players just grasp things faster (sometimes much faster).

Another anecdote : ~15 years ago, I sat down in a club to play a young 10 y.o. child in a rapid game. I thought I would quickly dispose of him (I was a mighty class B player at this time !), but the child was just not impressed. He played quickly, put his pieces on active squares in a non-theoretical opening, and at some stage spotted a simple combination and won a pawn. Then, a few moves later, he just won a piece. Without thinking much. I challenged him to another game, and the scenario was very similar : no theory, good enough moves, pieces slowly activating. Nothing earth shattering. But at some point, he saw a combo. In a couple of seconds - then later, another. Despite his playing quickly, there was no apparent way for me to win material. I was rather down after these games, but another player told me this young guy was quite strong, so no regrets. I met him again 2 years later OTB. He was rated 2150 (I managed to draw this time), and is now an IM (his name is Arnaud Rainfray). I can tell without a blink that this young man was already very talented at age 10, and I'm not surprised he made it to the title.

This discussion about "talent" has made the word into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you're a Master now, you must have talent.
If you want to become a Master, you will need talent.
If you do not become a Master, you do not have talent at all or your talent is not enough.

I still have to meet an IM, whom people describe as "moderately talented but a very hard worker". But maybe there are some 

Talent isn't really something you can see either, unlike computer games people doesn't have attribute bars next to them you can read. I've met quite a few IM's, and they are like most people, some are nice, some are rude. These things I can notice, their talent level? I can't see it, there's no bar to them, I don't know to what degree their skill comes from talent, hard work, and/or a mix of both.

But, I've noticed from discussions about this online that there is a way to see other people attribute bars, intelligence, talent and so forth, hopefully I'll also learn that skill one day. But maybe that's also a talent you are born with? In that case I'm screwed.

I'm certainly unable to tell what's the talent/work mix required to get a chess title (and I presume there are various combinations of these attributes that could work), but I still can detect talent for chess in a child, and many other trainers can do that too 

In your perspective as a trainer, can you tell us the difference between chess talent in a child vs talent in a novice adult or even a young person?

I take weekly lessons from an IM. He told me he once had a student who had no chess talent but had made it all the way to 2500 by memorizing every variation backwards and forwards of the Najdorf.

The reality is that to become an International Master you have to have a combination of talent, hard work gumption, and time that combines to make you exceptional at the game.

Hard for me to believe that you can make 2500 in chess without talent, but then I guess it depends on the definition of "talent" in the mind of this IM. However, I agree that hard work can bring you very far, especially in this computer age.

On a side note, using agressive and sound openings is a good way to reap tons of points at the class level. A Najdorf/KID repertoire certainly helps you rise faster than a Caro/QGD one.

Basically a child is talented in chess when :

• he grasps things quicker than the others, and is able to use immediately what he learns (I've seen the case very often with 5-7 yo. you show them a mating pattern in a classroom setting and then you give them a bunch of exercises with the same pattern and they're able to solve everything, even moderately difficult examples, while some of their friends struggle to reproduce the basic pattern)
• he has a greater ability to focus when he plays

I think the same would apply with a young adult, but it's more difficult to see what an adult understands or not, if only because adults are more reluctant to tell you they don't get your explanations